The End of the World, Part 1
August 27, 2011
by John Mauldin
What Is the CBO Seeing (or Smoking?)
The End of the World, Part 1
Who Will Rescue the Rescuers?
The Problems of Debt in the Eurozone
Thoughts on Jackson Hole
Some Thoughts on Getting Older
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine, then. Uh oh, overflow, population, common food, but it'll do to
Save yourself, serve yourself. World serves its own needs,
listen to your heart bleed – dummy with the rapture and
the revered and the right, right. You vitriolic, patriotic, slam,
fight, bright light, feeling pretty psyched.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
R.E.M. song from 1987
It’s not really the end of the world, but to read some of the analysis and data over the past week, it’s hard not to wonder if it’s not the beginning of the Endgame at the very least. There is more to cover than I can really do justice to, but we will just start. We HAVE to look at the US data first (briefly) and then on to Europe, where it will may be the end of the euro experiment, depending on two voting populations. Can you spell “Banking Crisis,” gentle reader? A nod to Bernanke’s finger-pointing speech, some links on the scourge of high-frequency trading, and we end on a positive note about the Boomer generation growing older. And, I answer the question that is burning in your brain: “How many years of US corn production will China’s dollar reserves buy?” Write your answer down now. This letter may print out longer than usual, as there are plenty of charts. Let’s skip the “but firsts” and jump right in.
What Is the CBO Seeing (or Smoking?)
Last week I finally stopped being wishy-washy (with my 50-50% chance of a recession call) and said the US would be in recession within 12 months. And suggested that you consider moving to the sidelines your longer-term equity investments, except your conviction stocks. (I have some of those in the biotech space and simply intend to buy more if the prices go down. But remember, I am looking out ten years and expect an eventual bubble, so I don’t care if I am early for some of my high-risk money.) Stocks typically go down about 40% or more in a recession. David Rosenberg estimates that we have seen 27% of a typical bear-market move, so that would suggest the possibility of another 30% downdraft (give or take).
None of the data this week makes me want to change my opinion on recession. Rich Yamarone (Bloomberg Chief Economist) and I traded emails as we got new data this morning, comparing notes. He does better charts than I do, so we will use his. (I hear, by the way, that he is being addressed as Lord Vader in the halls of Bloomberg. Come to think of it, his voice is rather raspy.)
As he points out, when GDP year-over-year drops by more than 2%, we have always had a recession. So with today’s second-quarter revision (first revision of many) down to just 1% (technically 0.99%, but we are among friends here), where are we? At 1.5% year-over-year. Here is the chart:
The normally bullish staff at economy.com gave us this rather dismal paragraph tonight as a summary to the week:
“The last week of the summer brings a rare Northeast hurricane and a heavy load of data that will show the economy running close to stall speed. Second quarter GDP was revised down to 1%, and the slight improvement in growth we expect for this quarter assumes no new financial shocks. Upcoming indicators for August will bear the mark of steep declines in stock prices. The employment report will be the headliner; nonfarm payrolls are expected to rise just 30,000, and the unemployment rate likely will tick up 0.1 percentage point to 9.3%. We think the ISM manufacturing survey dipped into contraction territory for the first time in two years, and auto sales and consumer confidence likely also fell during the month. There will also be significant interest in the minutes of the August Federal Open Market Committee meeting, especially given Chairman Ben Bernanke's omission of details regarding policy easing options in his Jackson Hole speech.”
Ugh. More on the Bernank later.
The Michigan Consumer Sentiment number was just awful. It dropped 8 full points (which is huge for this index) to 55.7. The index has fallen nearly 20 points in three months. In the chart below, note the close previous correlation between sentiment and GDP. Which do you think is more likely to happen: sentiment to rise or GDP to fall?
Unemployment claims are back up over 400,000, to 417,000. If the employment gain is really just 30,000, that bodes poorly for any recovery. So, exactly how does that square with the recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections? Quoting:
“CBO expects that the recovery will continue but that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP will stay well below the economy’s potential—a level that corresponds to a high rate of use of labor and capital—for several years. On the basis of economic data available through early July, when the agency initially completed its economic forecast, CBO projects that real GDP will increase by 2.3 percent this year and by 2.7 percent next year. Under current law, federal tax and spending policies will impose substantial restraint on the economy in 2013, so CBO projects that economic growth will slow that year before picking up again, averaging 3.6 percent per year from 2013 through 2016.”
Let me work you through the numbers. We grew at less than a total of 1.4% for the first six months of 2011. To get to 2.3% as an average for the year, we would need to grow by (back of the napkin) 3.2% for the last half of the year. We could reduce the deficit by a lot if we could sell what these guys are smoking to engender such optimism. I think demand would be strong, especially on Wall Street. (Note: these are the same people that told us in 2000 that all government debt would be gone by 2010. Just saying.)
Their projections are likely based on assumptions about recoveries from past recessions. But since 1945, all recessions have been business-cycle recessions. We are now in a deleveraging/balance-sheet/post-credit-crisis recession for which we have no modern analogs, except maybe Japan. And that hasn’t turned out too well, as in, two decades of going nowhere. Yet we are applying the same methodology (massive debt and deficits along with zero interest rates) that did not work there, and will soon bring Japan to ruin.
We have a fundamentally different economic scenario than at any time for the last 66 years. Why then should we expect the same outcome? EVERY indicator (employment, GDP, ISM, sentiment, etc.) is far below its average result two years after the official end of a recession. That should speak volumes.
So why does what the CBO says mean anything? Because Congress is making projections for future deficits, based on what appear to be wildly optimistic assumptions. That means future deficits are likely to be worse than expected. If we enter recession, as I expect, then revenues will be down (as unemployment will be up and profits down) and expenses will go up. That de minimis deficit reduction currently being negotiated by the “Gang of 12” will disappear in a cloud of smoke and maze of mirrors. This will mean that more pain in the terms of future spending cuts and/or tax increases will be needed. (I know a fair number of congressional staffers read this letter. Please pay attention here – your bosses need to be given a “heads up.”)
If we are in for a slow-growth, Muddle Through decade, then the deficit projections by CBO are dismally off. Get the spreadsheets. Factor in slower growth and higher unemployment and two recessions by the end of the decade (typical for the aftermath of a banking/debt crisis), and see what those deficit projections look like.
Given the large amount of data coming next week, as the month ends, I will stop here and get back to the US next week.
The End of the World, Part 1
In trying to decipher Europe it is hard to know where to start, but let’s begin with some assumptions:
For the euro to survive, one of two things must happen. Either the Germans (and the Dutch and Finns and French) decide to back the concept of some sort of eurobond financing of the balance sheets of the peripheral countries, OR there need to be massive write-downs of insolvent-country debt and the various countries need to backstop their banks, because bank losses will be massive.
The former needs buy-in from German voters. Polls show Germans are against the idea of eurobonds by something like 5-1 (75% against, 15% for). (More on Germany below.) The latter option assumes the peripheral countries will lose access to the private bond markets, thus forcing sudden and enormous austerity (read Depression levels or worse). Will they simply throw in the towel and leave the euro on their own, remaining in the free-trade zone but with their own currencies, much as Denmark, the Czech Republic, or Sweden are now? Or opt to suffer and remain in the euro?
Germany could decide not to back the peripheral country debt, and leave the Eurozone. But this would be painful for Germans. If you think the Swiss franc trade is crowded (and way overvalued) because people are looking for a safe haven, what would a new Deutschmark look like to investors? Switzerland is a country (and one of my favorite in the world, so no slight intended – I will be in Geneva for my birthday in October) of just over 7 million people, only somewhat larger than the population of the greater Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas area where I live (although with much better weather!).
Germany, on the other hand, is the world’s 4th largest country by GDP, with a population of over 82 million. It is well-run and respected. The new mark would climb to far higher levels against the remaining euro countries and other currencies, which for an export-driven nation would not be very helpful. Mercedes and BMWs cost a lot now (and don’t forget tool parts and other things Germany excels in making). Double the value of your currency in a short time? Watch your market share drop. Painful is perhaps an inadequate word.
So, what to make of the remarks this week by respected German leaders? Let’s fire up a few quotes here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finan ... s-Europes-bows.html):
“German President Christian Wulff has accused the European Central Bank of violating its treaty mandate with the mass purchase of southern European bonds. In a cannon shot across Europe’s bows, he warned that Germany is reaching bailout exhaustion and cannot allow its own democracy to be undermined by EU mayhem.
“ ‘I regard the huge buy-up of bonds of individual states by the ECB as legally and politically questionable. Article 123 of the Treaty on the EU’s workings prohibits the ECB from directly purchasing debt instruments, in order to safeguard the central bank’s independence,’ he said. ‘This prohibition only makes sense if those responsible do not get around it by making substantial purchases on the secondary market,’ he said, speaking at a forum of half the world’s Nobel economists on Lake Constance to review the errors of the profession over recent years.
“Mr Wulff said the ECB had gone ‘way beyond the bounds of their mandate’ by purchasing |
发表于 2011-9-8 16:04
| 
